saveasteading

Yes. Any water getting through the outer covering will reach the vcl and run down to the eaves, where the detailing should allow for it to drip outside, not into the cavity.

Construction. Nearly all big projects* dictate the contract, with more or less detail according to the circumstances. NEC and JCT ranging from Major to 'Minor Works". Also almost any project where a client's agent is engaging a main contractor.

A very good point about onerous terms being counterproductive. The big contractor spends money on lawyers and everyone ends up losing. The small contractor gives way, or folds, or smashes up the work. Best have no arguments. Clear contracts, however informal, help towards that. As does a site diary, as I repeatedly say.

The main purpose of a contract is to deal with any argument. They usually stay in the drawer. Major events are dealt with, such as what happens in a national emergency. Also dealing with any dispute.ie how to resolve it. Thus when lockdown eas imposed, the national contracts would have it covered, fairly to all parties. As to the project itself , it will be referred to by reference to the spec and drawings, so the contract doesn't add a lot. Perhaps the main benefit is providing a check list of payment terms and programme. It gets messy though when there is not a single contractor. If it is of any use , my company always had a JCT contract with our clients. We hardly ever used a nationally recognised contract between ourselves and subcontractors....instead using a purchase order which spelt out terms. A simple exchange of messages is often plenty to set up a supplier, and will suffice legally. If you can't explain it in writing, then you don't really know what the scope of work is, so the writing of it is useful in itself.

I apologise. It seems I have misunderstood what you were saying, both times.

You didn't say that, in fact implied the opposite. I read it that you were bragging that you ignored the advice. I see a lot of that on less worthy discussion sites than BH and it worries me. So perhaps I misread. I am all for sensible efficiency. What was particular to your situation that allowed a 4m run of footing to defy gravity?

On a positive note. Are you saying that there is a chipboard floor supported by a suspended concrete floor? Does that then have a void under it and air bricks in the wall? It might dry itself out.

It could be a long term problem, so does need looking into. As PD says, the insurers should see this through. I can sympathise with surveyors not being interested. Many wont have the skills for this. They would probably only confirm that there is a concern. Then the question is who will pay for their time. And if you will, they may just think that this should be an insurers responsibility, and it is too messy to get involved in. I suggest tell your insurers that you have taken advice, (you don't have to say where from) which is that the concrete needs to be tested for dampness and dried if necessary, as otherwise the chipboard is likely to rot again

What is your ground like? Big site ? Sloping? Assuming you know where the soakaway is, does it get wet there? Doing percolation tests is easy if you have a spade and water, and the inclination. It is worth getting this right, becayse apart from perhaps causing flooding, you want your rain to disappear. Your site already deals with the rain, you just have to spread out what your new house drainage will concentrate.

If you want a thorough assessment try Energist. It will cost a lot. But then if you have the input data already that should help.

My 4 years at uni and then 4 years practical seems to have been a waste of time. Seriously, that sort of chance is sometimes a gut feeling based on a feeling for the physics, that some peopld have, but often goes badly wrong. I've seen plenty go wrong fortunately usually other people's problems. Happy for you that it worked, and the wind didn't blow.

Very long masonry bits in Lidl at the moment.

It would be difficult to prove an existing soakaway without pouring in a day's worth of rain, then seeing if you could do the same next day. Unlikely to pass anyway after years of silting up. There is no harm in incorporating it if that works. Agree with Kelvin about the capacity of crates, although they are quite expensive. If you have lots of permeable ground then use French drains. If not, then crates are worth looking at, but it all still has to go somewhere. I have a strong suspicion that bcos don't look closely at soakaways. Avoidance of blame perhaps?

I agree. I typed it up yesterday and forgot to send. Basically any insects want a secure a d sheltered cavity and yours doesn't sound like one. And fundamentally we are looking at the funneling of fire through a cavity, which you don't have. I don't think you necessarily need cavity barriers or insect mesh. Getting a bco to agree anything non standard re fire is tricky though.

A 200mm slab is very thick and unusual on a farm building. Has this been checked in the middle. The edges will be deeper perhaps giving the impression that the slab is thick. Unless this is a pole barn, the columns will have concrete footings, tho unlikely to be to domestic standards.

When it goes wrong , it goes very wrong. Seen it once and it won't happen again. You did the right thing.

If i am reading this correctly, you slats are entirely aesthetic, with gaps between. At some stage it becomes so open that insects are not interested.

Of course there are. They are usually happier people too. And there are bad, greedy, cheating people in all walks of life. With the wisdom of age, I was never excited meeting a potential new client, and I didn't overpromise....even that we wanted the work. Some remarked on this as a positive. Also I would explain that we are not a bank, that they would be paying us about say £50k/ fortnight and that we need that promply for our bills, and we always pay promptly ourselves. Our best price will be based on these terms, and anything else causes us to charge more. Better to use your funds or bank... That can sort clients out. As soon as a QS or PM was involved we had increased risk (they like to show how tough they are) and admin.

Update. Have been putting the mulch round the roses and perennials. No sign of anything trying to grow within the pile. As instructed by Beechwood Garden and Gardeners World I am putting down 100mm. Ish. Better some plants thick and others with none, than spread, they say. Had a 100mm tree branch fallen from next door. About 5m long to the tips. Long handled chain saw, then loppers then grinder. Took an hour and the machine pulled the whole clusters through , led by 20mm branches which are easy to get to engage. Nil to brown bin. 1 hours worth of timber as logs and sticks, 2 trugs of mulch.

Not just that unfortunately. Our joiner was college trained, experienced, a superb worker and very highly skilled. Yet he did not understand the air-tightness thing at all. Sole plate to footings...'forgot' the mastic. Vapour barrier lapped but not sealed. when we raised the subject it generated a shake of the head, and basically he ignored it. (There is a lot of that even among the best workers....if they haven't heard of it then it must be wrong...and ignored.) So we did the seals out of hours. It follows that all the jobs he worked on in stick building, mostly as a sub-contractor I think, have been done without air-tightness being enforced. And that is a well-intentioned craftsman.

And even then they have to ask Highways for permission.

I wonder how much heat escapes from the centre of the room in reality. If the UFH is kept away from the wall, and a thermal break is inserted there then the direct bridge is closed. Better still if it is on the skirting line and an insulated wall as Iceverge suggests. The reality then is that the slab heat then all goes into the room, and some passes through that thermal bridge...but not a lot in the scheme of things.

Have now looked up Pear Tree. Again this is not onerous. I think your design depths are wrong. And therefore I am still with traditional footings 1.1 m deep, perhaps slightly wider footings than average, up to 1.5m deep looking for the optimum ground and narrower footings . Then either ground bearing slab or beam and block. Then any builder can do it which is another big advantage in price and progress. my way x Gus: add £3,000 Your original way add another £3,000 screw piles ditto. to which add for extra SE time.

Not necessarily. If the mains are on your side then that is good and relatively cheap. If they are across the road then there may be trenches and traffic lights....if it is a busy trunk road...ouch. It is easy to get quotes and they will attach drawings showing where the mains are.

Now that is unanimous and decided...what is the logic for front and back but not side? Me first. The front and back 'get a grant' but you have to pay for the gable and the secret gutters and the window reveals. timhotep, how did they get in touch with you? Was it the council, or a commercial approach?